TUĞBA TOZ AKALIN, Becen DEMİR, Funda ÖZTÜRK BOZKUR, HARİKA GÖZDE GÖZÜKARA BAĞ, Safa TUNCER

Profilaktik polisaj protokolleri ve ağız gargaralarının farklı adeziv restoratif materyallerin yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerine Etkisi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı profilaktik polisaj protokolleri ve ağız gargaralarının genellikle sınıf V kaviteler için tercih edilen farklı adeziv restoratif materyallerin yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerine etkisini incelemektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Güçlendirilmiş geleneksel cam iyonomer, rezin modifiye cam iyonomer, akışkan composit ve nanohibrid kompozit kullanılmıştır. Her restoratif materyalden 40 örnek hazırlanmış, polisaj yapılmış ve profilometre ile başlangıç yüzey pürüzlülüğü ölçümleri elde edilmiştir. Örnekler daha sonra profilaktik polisaj protokollerine göre iki gruba ayrılmıştır: ultrasonic temizleme; ultrasonic temizleme ve air polishing. Ra değerlerinin elde edilmesinin ardından gruplar iki alt gru-ba ayrılmış ve farklı iki ağız gargasına maruz kalmış ve Ra değerleri elde edilmiştir. Son olarak örnekler tekrar polisajlanıp son Ra ölçümleri alınmıştır. Bulgular: Profilaktik polisaj protokolları, özellikle air polishing, yüzey pürüzlülüğünde anlamlı derecede artışa sebep olurken (p0.05). Tekrar polisajlama uygulaması yüzey pürüzlülüğünü değerlerini düşürmüştür. Kompozitlerle karşılaştırıldığında test edilen cam iyonomerler daha kötü yüzey pürüzlülüğü değerleri vermiştir. Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sonucu profilaktik polisaj protokollerinin restoratif materyallerin özellikle cam iyonomerlerin yüzey pürüzlülüğünü artırdığını göstermiştir.

Effect of prophylactic Polishing protocols and mouthrinses on the surface roughness of different Adhesive restorative materials

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of prophylactic polishing protocols and mouth rinses on surface roughness of different tooth colored restoratives that were generally preferred for Class V cavities.Materials and Methods: A reinforced conventional glass ionomer, a resin modified glass ionomer, a flowable, and a nanohybrid composite were used. Forty specimens for each restorative materials were fabricated and polished and baseline surface roughness (Ra) measurements were obtained by a profilometer. Then the specimens were divided into two groups according to prophylactic polishing pro-tocols: ultrasonic scaling or ultrasonic scaling and air polishing. Following Ra measurements prophy-lactic polishing protocols groups were divided into two subgroups for two different mouth rinses im-mersion and Ra measurements were obtained afterwards. Finally the specimens were re-polished and Ra values were recorded. Results: Prophylactic polishing protocols, especially air polishing, resulted in significant increases in surface roughness (p<0.001) while mouth rinses had minimal effects (p>0.05). Re-polishing proce-dures decreased surface roughness values. Tested glass ionomers showed worse surface roughness values compared with resin composites. Conclusion: Result of this research indicated that prophylactic polishing protocols increased surface roughness values of restorative materials, especially glass ionomers.

PDF

___

1. Worthington HV, Clarkson JE, Bryan G, Beirne PV. Routine scale and polish for periodontal health in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 11: 1-68
2. Petersilka GJ, Bell M, Häberlein I, et al. In vitro evaluation of novel low abrasive air polishing powders. J Clin Periodontol 2003; 30: 9-13
3. Kimyai S, Savadi-Oskoee S, Ajami AA, et al. Effect of three prophylaxis methods on surface roughness of giomer. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011; 16: 114.
4. Graumann SJ, Sensat ML, Stoltenberg JL. Air polishing: A review of current litrature. J Dent Hyg 2013; 87: 173-180.
5. Pihlstrom BL1, Michalowicz BS, Johnson NW. Periodontal diseases. Lancet 2005; 366: 1809-1820.
6. Mandel ID. Antimicrobial mouthrinses: overview and update. J Am Dent Assoc 1994; 125: 2-10.
7. Commission FDI. Mouthrinses and periodontal disease. Int Dent J 2002; 52: 346-352.
8. Mankodi S, Bauroth K, Witt JJ, et al.A 6-month clinical trial to study the effects of a cetylpyridini-um chloride mouthrinse on gingivitis and plaque. Am J Dent 2005; 18: 9-14.
9. Witt JJ, Walters P, Bsoul S, et al.Comparative clinical trial of two antigingivitis mouthrinses. Am J Dent 2005; 18: 15-17.
10. Folwaczny M, Merkel U, Mehl A, Hickel R. Influence of parameters on root surface roughness following treatment with a magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 2004; 75: 1221-1226.
11. Kishida M, Sato S, Ito K.Effects of a new ultrasonic scaler on fibroblast attachment to root surfac-es: a scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Periodontal Res 2004; 39: 111-119.
12. Lai YL, Lin YC, Chang CS, Lee SY.Effects of sonic and ultrasonic scaling on the surface roughness of tooth-colored restorative materials for cervical lesions. Oper Dent 2007; 32: 273-278.
13. Mourouzis P1, Koulaouzidou EA, Vassiliadis L, Helvatjoglu-Antoniades M. Effects of sonic scaling on the surface roughness of restorative materials. J Oral Sci 2009; 51: 607-614.
14. Colucci V, Dos Santos CD, Do Amaral FL, et al. Influence of NaHCO3 powder on translucency of microfilled composite resin immersed in different mouthrinses. J Esthet Restor Dent 2009; 21: 242-248.
15. Jefferies SR. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: a state-of-the-art review. Dent Clin North Am 2007; 51: 379-397.
16. Furuse AY, Gordon K, Rodrigues FP, et al. Colour-stability and gloss-retention of silorane and dimethacrylate composites with accelerated aging. J Dent 2008; 36: 945-952.
17. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M.Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Ma-ter 1997; 13: 258-269.
18. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004; 196: 42-45.
19. Gurgan, S, Yalcin Cakir F. The effect of three different mouthrinses on the surface hardness, gloss and colour change of bleached nano composite resins. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2008; 16: 104-108.
20. Roeder LB, Tate WH, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 534-543.
21. Warren DP, Colescott TD, Henson HA, Powers JM. Effects of four prophylaxis pastes on surface roughness of a composite, a hybrid ionomer, and a compomer restorative material. J Esthet Restor Dent 2002; 14: 245-251.
22. Erdilek D, Sismanoglu S, Gumustas B, Efes BG. Effects of ultrasonic and sonic scaling on surfaces of tooth-colored restorative materials: An in vitro study. Niger J Clin Pract 2015; 18: 467-471.
23. Yap AU, Wu SS, Chelvan S, Tan ES.Effect of hygiene maintenance procedures on surface rough-ness of composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 99-104.
24. Carr MP, Mitchell JC, Seghi RR, Vermilyea SG. The effect of air polishing on contemporary es-thetic restorative materials. Gen Dent 2002; 50: 238-241.
25. Ikeda I, Otsuki M, Sadr A, et al. Effect of filler content of flowable composites on resin-cavity inter-face. Dent Mater J 2009; 28: 679-685.
26. Poggio C, Arciola CR, Rosti F, et al. Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to different restorative materials. Int J Artif Organs 2009; 32: 671-677.
27. Festuccia MS1, Garcia Lda F, Cruvinel DR, Pires-De-Souza Fde C. Color stability, surface roughness and microhardness of composites submitted to mouthrinsing action. J Appl Oral Sci 2012; 20: 200-205.
28. Gürdal P, Akdeniz BG, Hakan Sen B. The effects of mouthrinses on microhardness and colour stability of aesthetic restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29: 895- 901.
29. Gürgan S, Onen A, Köprülü H. In vitro effects of alcohol-containing and alcohol-free mouthrinses on microhardness of some restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24: 244-246.
30. Penugonda B, Settembrini L, Scherer W, Hittelman E, Strassler H. Alcohol-containing mouth-washes: effect on composite hardness. J Clin Dent 1994; 5: 60-62